"States could continue using HealthCare.gov but pass a bill or otherwise indicate that the website functions as their state-based insurance exchange. Creating a website from scratch had been one of the biggest impediments to states creating their own exchanges. :"

Um, why the fark would they need to pass a bill. They ARE USING IT AS THEIR STATE-BASED EXCHANGE!

The article makes sense to me, but it still relies on the legislatures of the states that did not set up their own exchanges, i.e. the Republican states, to take an action that essentially saves Obamacare. If Alabama, for example, didn't want Obamacare to work, all they would have to do is not pass the law discussed in the article.

I agree that it would be a successful workaround, it'd just require Republican state governments to be on board, and I'm not sure they would be.

"States could continue using HealthCare.gov but pass a bill or otherwise indicate that the website functions as their state-based insurance exchange. Creating a website from scratch had been one of the biggest impediments to states creating their own exchanges. :"

Um, why the fark would they need to pass a bill. They ARE USING IT AS THEIR STATE-BASED EXCHANGE!

And why would the fark-up states pass that law? They're the ones that want the system to fail.

Between Hobby Lobby and the D.C. Circuit's opinion, I'm terrified that what used to be called jurisprudence and careful application of case law has been reduced to smoking rubble in the name of partisanship.

It used to be you'd get hoisted by your balls by the Courts if you advanced such shiatty arguments, but now...urgh.

Such administrative action might still require some action by the states. They might, for example, have to file some kind of paperwork with HHS, Pearson said. The National Review reported that one health policy expert at Duke University estimated that as many as 20 states would be willing to pass legislation stating that HealthCare.gov functioned as their state exchange.

Doubt it.

I bet a bunch of red states will refuse to so much as click OK if it meant they could spite Obama and strike a blow against Obamacare. Even though it means cutting off subsidies and directly harming their own citizens.

The problem is that the Republican-controlled legislatures in those states will never pass such a law, because the average Republican voter in those states is blind enough to think that the party that just gave him health insurance is the party that just took it away too.

sugardave:meat0918: FTFA:"States could continue using HealthCare.gov but pass a bill or otherwise indicate that the website functions as their state-based insurance exchange. Creating a website from scratch had been one of the biggest impediments to states creating their own exchanges. :"Um, why the fark would they need to pass a bill. They ARE USING IT AS THEIR STATE-BASED EXCHANGE!And why would the fark-up states pass that law? They're the ones that want the system to fail.

No kidding. TFA suggests that the very same governors who stamped their feet and said "NO!" to creating a state exchange will now be willing to cooperate with the administration on the federal exchange?

"States could continue using HealthCare.gov but pass a bill or otherwise indicate that the website functions as their state-based insurance exchange. Creating a website from scratch had been one of the biggest impediments to states creating their own exchanges. :"

Um, why the fark would they need to pass a bill. They ARE USING IT AS THEIR STATE-BASED EXCHANGE!

As I said in the other thread... that's exactly how the appeal ruling should come down. The federal exchange is the actor for non-exchange states, and any benefit that applies to customers of state exchanges in compliant states also apply to customers of federal exchanges in non-compliant states.

jst3p:Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ignoring laws has never been one of Odumbo's problems. I predict great success.

[static.fjcdn.com image 280x272]

That's the latest of those type of images and I love it. I can't wait to make stickers out of it and use it on my kid's sticker board when they obviously aren't really trying to do whatever activity they were instructed to do. Either shame will make them do it better, or they'll think it's hilarious; either way is a win.

Lord Dimwit:jst3p: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ignoring laws has never been one of Odumbo's problems. I predict great success.

[static.fjcdn.com image 280x272]

That's the latest of those type of images and I love it. I can't wait to make stickers out of it and use it on my kid's sticker board when they obviously aren't really trying to do whatever activity they were instructed to do. Either shame will make them do it better, or they'll think it's hilarious; either way is a win.

I love it too, although I would change the text to something like "There were a attempt made here"

mediablitz:Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ignoring laws has never been one of Odumbo's problems. I predict great success.

Are you 12? Serious question, since school is still out.

The sad thing is that, while he's probably just a troll (which is immature in itself), this really is the kind of thing you see Republicans constantly doing. I know, personally, people who do this and think it's the height of hilarity - and they're much older than 12.

MattStafford:but it still relies on the legislatures of the states that did not set up their own exchanges, i.e. the Republican states, to take an action that essentially saves Obamacare. If Alabama, for example, didn't want Obamacare to work, all they would have to do is not pass the law discussed in the article.

They delight in denying health insurance to their constituents. They brag about it. I certainly don't expect their sociopathic behavior to change.

They delight in getting big checks from the insurance lobby, just like the democrats do. If the Democrats wanted single payer they could have passed it instead of the PPACA. They didn't because they don't want it. Well they might, but they want insurance industry money more.

This is not a BSAB argument, just pointing out that as long as this is true:

The rhetoric has gone on too far and too long. The Hoverround brigade won't let people "get something for nothing", even if it were phrased as "expand Medicare and get the gubmint out of healthcare", and the fundies will protest "paying" for women's healthcare. Anyone in the party who suggests otherwise will have the same end as that guy in Perfume, only less friendly.

Wyalt Derp:MattStafford: but it still relies on the legislatures of the states that did not set up their own exchanges, i.e. the Republican states, to take an action that essentially saves Obamacare. If Alabama, for example, didn't want Obamacare to work, all they would have to do is not pass the law discussed in the article.

Doc Daneeka:Wyalt Derp: MattStafford: but it still relies on the legislatures of the states that did not set up their own exchanges, i.e. the Republican states, to take an action that essentially saves Obamacare. If Alabama, for example, didn't want Obamacare to work, all they would have to do is not pass the law discussed in the article.

Sure it is, they'll just blame what they've done on Obama and the Democrats.

And the conservative voters in those states will believe it.

Only the ones who were never going to vote anything but R anyway. The ones in the middle? Hard to tell. That's one of the flaws in the electoral college. Only the swing states matter, and they matter a LOT.

clkeagle:sugardave: meat0918: FTFA:"States could continue using HealthCare.gov but pass a bill or otherwise indicate that the website functions as their state-based insurance exchange. Creating a website from scratch had been one of the biggest impediments to states creating their own exchanges. :"Um, why the fark would they need to pass a bill. They ARE USING IT AS THEIR STATE-BASED EXCHANGE!And why would the fark-up states pass that law? They're the ones that want the system to fail.

No kidding. TFA suggests that the very same governors who stamped their feet and said "NO!" to creating a state exchange will now be willing to cooperate with the administration on the federal exchange?

meat0918: FTFA:

"States could continue using HealthCare.gov but pass a bill or otherwise indicate that the website functions as their state-based insurance exchange. Creating a website from scratch had been one of the biggest impediments to states creating their own exchanges. :"

Um, why the fark would they need to pass a bill. They ARE USING IT AS THEIR STATE-BASED EXCHANGE!

As I said in the other thread... that's exactly how the appeal ruling should come down. The federal exchange is the actor for non-exchange states, and any benefit that applies to customers of state exchanges in compliant states also apply to customers of federal exchanges in non-compliant states.

Right - you can build your own or use somebody else's, in this case the FED's. Is the Fed Exchange the exact same for any state, I mean are the same offers from the same providers available to both Arkansas and Kansas residents? Or are the offers specific to the State in question from providers allowed to do business in those states? If they're specific to the state, those are State Exchanges, regardless of who built the exchange or paid for it.

"States could continue using HealthCare.gov but pass a bill or otherwise indicate that the website functions as their state-based insurance exchange. Creating a website from scratch had been one of the biggest impediments to states creating their own exchanges. :"

Um, why the fark would they need to pass a bill. They ARE USING IT AS THEIR STATE-BASED EXCHANGE!

Because ACA oppenents are latching on the very narrow reading of the law in the phase "Exchanges established by the States". They are arguing the Exchanges setup by the Feds aren't "Established by the State". The article talks about idea of the States basically delegating the establishing their Exchanges to the HHS. The same idea occurred to be yesterday. Basically a rules change to allow it explicitly. And the States taking some action which says that HHS is authorized to run the State's exchange. Yeah, yeah I know but the idea seems to obvious that it didn't need mentioning. And the article proved me right on that.

But the ACA can be read as there being no differences in the Exchanges.

42 U.S. Code Section 18031 (b)(1):

Each State shall...establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an "Exchange") for the State that-

42 U.S. Code Section 18031 (d)(1):

An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

So the Act defines what an terms "Exchange" means are used by the ACA.

42 U.S. Code Section 18041:(c) Failure to establish Exchange or implement requirements(1) In general If-(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b);

the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.

So basically you can read it as "if a State elected not to establish an "Exchange established by the State" (18031(b)(1),(d)(1)), but if they don't the Secretary of HHS will establish "such Exchange (established by the State)" (18031(b)(1),(d)(1))." Remember 18031(b)(1),(d)(1)) defines what "Exchange" means in in the ACA.

Wyalt Derp:MattStafford: but it still relies on the legislatures of the states that did not set up their own exchanges, i.e. the Republican states, to take an action that essentially saves Obamacare. If Alabama, for example, didn't want Obamacare to work, all they would have to do is not pass the law discussed in the article.

That actually would be a winning strategy in the red states. I'm almost certain there are people there who could have health coverage to save their lives, but are dying without getting help in order to "stick it to 0bama". Stupid isn't curable.

menschenfresser:Wyalt Derp: MattStafford: but it still relies on the legislatures of the states that did not set up their own exchanges, i.e. the Republican states, to take an action that essentially saves Obamacare. If Alabama, for example, didn't want Obamacare to work, all they would have to do is not pass the law discussed in the article.

That actually would be a winning strategy in the red states. I'm almost certain there are people there who could have health coverage to save their lives, but are dying without getting help in order to "stick it to 0bama". Stupid isn't curable.

There are plenty of states that sent more red Representatives than blue ones to Congress in 2012, even though more blue votes were cast in those states. Non-morons shouldn't be punished for being unable to move out of a gerrymandered Congressional district.

And even in the other cases, many red voters shouldn't be punished for their pre-existing condition of being a moron. Isn't that a fine metaphor for what the ACA is all about?

"States could continue using HealthCare.gov but pass a bill or otherwise indicate that the website functions as their state-based insurance exchange. Creating a website from scratch had been one of the biggest impediments to states creating their own exchanges. :"

Um, why the fark would they need to pass a bill. They ARE USING IT AS THEIR STATE-BASED EXCHANGE!

Because ACA oppenents are latching on the very narrow reading of the law in the phase "Exchanges established by the States". They are arguing the Exchanges setup by the Feds aren't "Established by the State". The article talks about idea of the States basically delegating the establishing their Exchanges to the HHS. The same idea occurred to be yesterday. Basically a rules change to allow it explicitly. And the States taking some action which says that HHS is authorized to run the State's exchange. Yeah, yeah I know but the idea seems to obvious that it didn't need mentioning. And the article proved me right on that.

But the ACA can be read as there being no differences in the Exchanges.

42 U.S. Code Section 18031 (b)(1):

Each State shall...establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an "Exchange") for the State that-

42 U.S. Code Section 18031 (d)(1):

An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

So the Act defines what an terms "Exchange" means are used by the ACA.

42 U.S. Code Section 18041:(c) Failure to establish Exchange or implement requirements(1) In generalIf-(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b);

the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.

So basically you can read it as "if a State elected not to establish an "Exchange established by the State" (18031(b)(1),(d)(1)), but if they do ...

MattStafford:The article makes sense to me, but it still relies on the legislatures of the states that did not set up their own exchanges, i.e. the Republican states, to take an action that essentially saves Obamacare. If Alabama, for example, didn't want Obamacare to work, all they would have to do is not pass the law discussed in the article.

I agree that it would be a successful workaround, it'd just require Republican state governments to be on board, and I'm not sure they would be.

But yesterday you said they don't have state established exchanges (that's how you were saying the judgement was correct) so what would they need to opt out of if their state doesn't have an exchange already?

clkeagle:menschenfresser: Wyalt Derp: MattStafford: but it still relies on the legislatures of the states that did not set up their own exchanges, i.e. the Republican states, to take an action that essentially saves Obamacare. If Alabama, for example, didn't want Obamacare to work, all they would have to do is not pass the law discussed in the article.

That actually would be a winning strategy in the red states. I'm almost certain there are people there who could have health coverage to save their lives, but are dying without getting help in order to "stick it to 0bama". Stupid isn't curable.

There are plenty of states that sent more red Representatives than blue ones to Congress in 2012, even though more blue votes were cast in those states. Non-morons shouldn't be punished for being unable to move out of a gerrymandered Congressional district.

And even in the other cases, many red voters shouldn't be punished for their pre-existing condition of being a moron. Isn't that a fine metaphor for what the ACA is all about?

You're right, of course - and a darn good person for sticking up for the wellbeing of people who wish harm on others.